REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
HEARING
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR OTHERWISE MODIFY EXISTING
INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY ORGANIZATIONS,
INCLUDING THE UNITED NATIONS
PART 11
APRIL 11, IO.m
DENVER, COLO.
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
42435
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1955
REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER 1579
Dr. Hioman. I don’t think there is any analogy whatever between
poison gas and hydrogen weapons.
Senator Sparkman. I admit it is rather farfetched. I started off by
saying that it was about the nearest that we had had yet. Of course,
we have not lived in the hydrogen-bomb era yet. We are just be-
ginning to live in it.
Dr. Hioman. If the power of destruction of these weapons is not
what I am told it is, then I would not hold these views.
Senator Sparkman. Senator Knowland here is on the Joint Atomic
Energy Committee. I think he could tell you that it is all that you
have been told, and perhaps more.
Dr. Hioman. I am scared.
Senator Knowland. We will admit in evidence that it is a potent
weapon.
Dr. Hioman. I think we ought to control it.
Senator Sparkman. Thank you very much, Dr. Higman.
Dr. Hioman. Thank you very much.
Senator Sparkman. Mr. LeFevre.
Mr. Good. After Mr. LeFevre, the next witness will be Mr. Howard
Wallace.
Senator Sparkman. We are glad to have you with us, sir.
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sparkman. Proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LeFEVRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CONGRESS OF FREEDOM, INC.
Mr. LeFevre. Senators, ladies, and gentlemen, my name is Robert
LeFevre. I am appearing as a representative of the Congress of
Freedom, Inc., a nationwide organization which is a coalition of
patriotic Americans drawn from nearly 500 different organizations,
and groups throughout the United States. My position with the
Congress of Freedom is that of executive director. I am on its board
of directors and also serve on its executive committee.
I would like to take this opportunity of inviting those present to
attend the convention the week of April 30. At that time, you will
have the opportunity of seeing the grassroots Americans meeting in
assembly to take up this very question of the United Nations.
UNITED STATES WITH DRA W A L URGED
I am appearing here tonight to urge that the United States with-
draw from the United Nations organization with the least possible
delay. I am in opposition to any moves which might tend to amend
the charter of the United Nations. I believe that from an American
point of view, any permanent alliance with foreign countries, in or
out of a world government, are damaging to American ideals, the
American heritage, and American freedom.
The U. N. was organized ostensibly to bring peace, but it began by
placing an economic and social burden on all member governments
which no government of a free people is properly equipped to carry.
1580
REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
HUMAN RKHITS ACTIVITIES CRITICIZED
The Declaration, or Covenant of Human Rights, which is the very
heartbeat of the U. N., sets forth a whole series of so-called rights,
which are to he provided and guaranteed by these member govern-
ments. While this may be a step forward for other nations which
have in truth not advanced very far into the realm of human liberty,
it is a step backwards insofar as the United States is concerned.
Human liberty was the historic principle invoked at the starting
of our country which found its most concise expression in the lirst
10 amendments to our Constitution. These amendments form a pro-
hibition against government. These amendments do not pretend to
declare what government shall do for people, but instead declare what
governments shall not do. There are set out things the Government
must not do either for or to people.
Now, the entire central theme of the United Nations Charter, with
its alleged human rights, is an abrogation of the American Bill of
Rights. According to the declaration of human rights, the member
governments agree to all manner of fanciful benehts, including the
right to social security for every human being, of every member nation,
including China and Russia. plus a guaranty of a constantly rising
standing of living.
We cannot support these United Nations concepts without betray-
ing the concepts of the United States.
FAILURES OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY
Now, the U. N. idea is not new. It has been tried repeatedly as a
cure for war. More than 150 known attempts have been made to
unite the world in a single political and economic entity to secure the
peace. These date from the time of Pharaoh Menes, who succeeded
in uniting the upper and lower Nile Valleys, down to the present
time. That was about 3,000 13. C.
Now, every single one of these efforts has failed to bring peace.
Why (
Before we answer that question, please note, there is not any pur-
pose whatsoever in the United Nations if it cannot bring peace. Peace
is what we need on this planet more than any other single commodity.
Now, why have all these efforts at bringing peace failed? Why has
the U. N. failed, and why will it continue to fail despite any attempts
to patch it up and make it work (
Gentlemen, we must learn to understand the tools that we use. We
know that a shovel i^ a tool, and as such it does not transmit mes-
sage.*'. W e know that a broadcasting station is a tool and it doesn't
dig ditches. Every tool has been designed for a specific task.
The United Nations is a tool, just as each government member of it
is a tool.
Now, let us examine this tool to see if it has been properly designed
and if it can reasonably be expected to perform the task assigned
to it.
All governments seek to win obedience through three devices. First,
they have consent from the governed. When that fails, they resort to-
threats. When that fails, they use force. There is no exception <«
these facts in all of history.
REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
1581
Force is a logical extension of political power. Government- un-
derstand force. They are tools and instrument < of force. Every ertort
in history to create world peace has been made by governments which
are instruments of force. That is why all of them have failed, and
will continue to fail.
Senator Sparkman. Senator KnowlamW
Senator Kxowlaxd. Xo questions.
Senator Sparkman. Thank von verv much.
* •
(The prepared statement of Mr. I^eFevre is as follows:)
Stati.mknt of Rokkht LkFkvrk
My name is Robert LeFevre. I am a news analyst and reporter, at present
employed as an editorial writer on the staff of the Gazette Telegraph, a daily
paper in Colorado Springs.
I am appearing as a representative of the Congress of Freedom, Inc., a nation-
wide organization which is a coalition of patriot ic Americans drawn from nearly
500 different organizations and groups throughout the United States. My
position with the Congress of Freedom is that of executive director. I am on
its hoard of directors and also serve on its executive committee.
I am appeal ing here to urge that the United States withdraw from the United
Nations Organization with the least possible delay. I am limiting my reasons,
because of the small amount of time allotted to me, to those falling into three
principal categories. They are : The record of the present United Nations, the
historical record of the United Nations idea, and the fundamental philosophy
and its fallacies behind any United Nations idea.
On the record, here is what the U. N. has done. It was organized ostensibly
to bring peace, but it began by placing an economic and social burden on all
member governments which no government of a free people is properly equipped
to carry. The Declaration or Covenant of Human Rights, which is the very
heartbeat of tbe U. X., sets forth a whole series of so-called rights which are
to be provided and guaranteed by these member governments. While this may
be a step forward for other nations which have, in truth, not advanced very
far into the realm of human liberty, it is a step backward insofar as the United
States is concerned.
Human liberty was the historic principle iuvoked at the starting of our
country, which found its most concise expression iu the first 10 amendments
to our Constitution. These amendments form a prohibition against govern-
ment. These amendments do not pretend to declare what governments shall
do for people, but instead declare that the Government shall not do certain things
either for or to the people.
The entire central theme of the United Nations Charter with its alleged human
rights is an abrogation of the American Bill of Rights. We cannot support these
United Nations concepts without betraying the concepts of the United States.
Also on the record, the U. X. was conceived in part by convicted perjurer
Alger Hiss. It has housed and continues to house a number of persons from
this country whose loyalty to the United States is open to question. It advo-
cates a loyalty oath for its employees which virtually removes them from a
loyalty to America and the ideals we hold mutually as Americans.
Iu the realm of peacemaking the U. N. is a failure.
The U. N. made a declaration which was supposed to bring peace in Iran.
In open defiance the Soviet Government refused to withdraw its troops from
this country.
The U. X. attempted to solve a crisis in Greece. The U. X. representatives
were not even permitted to cross the Grecian border. Instead, American gen-
eral. .lames Van Fleet, and American money heli>ed put down a Communist-
inspired movement which came in part from Yugoslavia.
The l T . X. declared a cease-fire in the U.X. -sanctioned State of Israel. Both
sides here have continued to shoot at will despite the U. X.
America's U. X. allies in Korea, whose military contribution Gen. Mark
Clark described as “piddling,” were part of the reason for America's only mili-
tary defeat as a natiou. It was U. N. -inspired reasons which prohibited bombing
north of the Yalu and prevented the blowing up of the bridges crossing this
strategic river.
1582
REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Further, Russia, a member of the U. N., took sides against the U. N. but has
never been asked to leave the organization. Russia’s continued role in the
organization is sufficient in itself to cause America to withdraw.
When communism reared its ugly head in Guatemala, the only reason a great
military disaster did not overtake American interests there is because Col.
Castillo Armas, leader in Guatemala, refused to obey the U. N. advice.
At present, despite efforts made by the chief of the U. N., Dag Hammarskjold,
American airmen are held prisoner in Red China, and a strong movement is
underway for Red China to be admitted into the U. N.
Now to history :
The U. N. idea is not new. It has been tried repeatedly as a cure for war.
More than 150 known attempts have been made to unite the world in a single
political and economic entity to secure the peace. These date from the time
of the great Tharaoh Menes, who succeeded in uniting the upper and lower Nile
Valleys, down to the present time. They include the efforts of the great Chinese
dictator Shi Huang-ti, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon with its great tower of Babel,
Alexander the Great, the union of the Greek city states under Theseus, the Great
Roman Empire, the Napoleonic conquests, the Mongol and Tartar hordes under
Genghis Khan and Tammerlane, and can include the efforts of Germany in World
Wars I and II, together with the efforts of Hirohito, Mussolini, and many other
one-worlders. These men were always for peace, because they told their fol-
lowers that they were. The results of their efforts every schoolboy knows.
There was, beginning in 1898, what could be called the “modern” effort to form
One World. It was instigated by the czar of Russia and culminated in the
Hague Convention, World War I, the Kellogg-Briand pacts, the League of Na-
tions, World War II, the United Nations, Korea • * * and the brink of world
war III, which is where we now stand.
Every single one of these efforts has failed to bring peace. But please note.
There is no purpose whatsoever in the United Nations if it cannot bring peace.
Pence is what we need on this planet more than any other single commodity.
Why have all these efforts at bringing peace failed? Why has the U. N. failed,
and why will it continue to fail despite any attempts to patch it up and make it
work?
Here is the philosophy :
Ladies and gentlemen, we must learn to understand the tools we use. We
know that a shovel is a tool, and as such it does not transmit messages. We
know that a radio station is a tool and as such it does not dig ditches. Every
tool has been designed for a specific task. The United Nations is a tool. Just as
each government member of it is a tool. Let us examine this tool to see if it has
been properly designed and can reasonably be expected to perform the task
assigned to it. Because it must be apparent by now, that when mankind so longs
for peace and is willing to go to tremendous lengths to get it. all the efforts of
the past as well as today’s efforts must be in error if we are not on the way to
achieving our goal.
What is the United Nations? It is a union of various member governments.
What are these governments? They are all of them instruments of force. What
is government except force? The very meaning of the word “government” has
to do with compulsion • * * force.
All governments seek and win obedience through three devices. First they
have consent from the governed. When that fails, they resort to threats. When
the threats fail, they use force. There is no exception to these facts in all of
history. Force is a logical extension of political power. Governments under-
stand force. It Is their natural function. Every effort in history to create
world peace has been made by government. But all governments are instruments
of force. Force cannot be used to bring peace. The use of force not only leads
to war, It is war.
Thank you.
Senator Sparkman. The next witness is Mr. Howard L. Wallace.
Mr. Good. Following Mr. Wallace, the next witness will be Mrs.
Sidney Milstein.
Senator Sparkman. Mr. Wallace, we are glad to have you with us.
Mr. Wallace. I am glad to be here, sir.
Senator Sparkman. Proceed, sir.
